If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the forum FAQ and the House Rules and Forum Guidelines.
You will have to register before you can post. If you find your registration is rejected, please try again using a different username. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Suggestions for future versions
Individual ideas on one subject should still be posted in the wishlist thread, however if you want to discuss your idea with others please create your own thread. Please name your topics sensibly and give an indication of what it is about.
For general ideas or a list please use this Wishlist topic. You can view some older suggestions here

Because it was absolutely imperative the AI didn't score too many goals from corners, it seems like the knock on is that their set piece routines were so bad they hardly scored any. Delivery accuracy would have been tweaked up to ensure they were scoring at the right ratio (dead ball v open play goals). Consequently, any half decent user routine dominates.

Aren't the AI routines the same as the default set piece creator ones then? They regularly score corners against me anyway. The last 50 games statistic says I've scored 10 goals from corners whilst the AI has scored 8 against me. All on default settings. Can't say I've noticed the AI teams being 'nerfed' in any way when it comes to set piece routines.

wwfan explained it : you score easily from corners, therefore the AI tries harder to score, switching to a tactic they aren't used to (bug in Match Prep), and it impacts their morale (bug on morale). It also leaves you with more easy scoring occasions.

To me, this is a perfectly valid analysis. User team doesn't score a lot from corners or IFK, they score too often.

Aren't the AI routines the same as the default set piece creator ones then? They regularly score corners against me anyway. The last 50 games statistic says I've scored 10 goals from corners whilst the AI has scored 8 against me. All on default settings. Can't say I've noticed the AI teams being 'nerfed' in any way when it comes to set piece routines.

Are you finding it too easy?

I'm just looking at the conversion ratios. They are hugely biased in favour of users and set piece conversion is unarguably the core culprit. I am pretty certain this will knock on to other chances being converted more easily as the AI is forced to open up against a solid strategy.

From my experience the AI also scores very easily from set pieces, just to make sure, people that leave their routine on default and corner delivery on mixed aren't affected by this? Only the people that set corners to near or far post?

And for what it's worth i'm not one of those that are finding it too easy.

From my experience the AI also scores very easily from set pieces, just to make sure, people that leave their routine on default and corner delivery on mixed aren't affected by this? Only the people that set corners to near or far post?

Same question. Are you finding it too easy? If so, check your conversion ratio against all the other teams in the division.

If not and you do concede lots from corners, it might be that the same players who score goals also give a defensive advantage for set pieces as well, which would make a lot of sense.

Yeah to be honest what your describing makes sense. It doesnt appear the AI properly learns 3 tactics like we do, and by the conversion rate it seems the human controlled team scores more than it should from set pieces, which in turn means the AI has to come out and attack more than they would normally, changing to unfamiliar tactics and leaving themselves more open, which in turn leads to high scoring games and what appears to be easy wins for the human user.

Not an easy one to track down, but this could definitely go a long way to explaining the issues experienced by some users.

I'm just looking at the conversion ratios. They are hugely biased in favour of users and set piece conversion is unarguably the core culprit. I am pretty certain this will knock on to other chances being converted more easily as the AI is forced to open up against a solid strategy.

I'm not sure. I'm doing a career game in Swedish lower leagues, am doing well but that could well be down to the quality of my team compared to the opposition. The game says I'm overachieving greatly but it's looking at reputation only when deciding that so it means very little.

I can't argue against the conversion ratios you're seeing, I'm just wondering as to why they're so high in the first place when the AI should be using the same set piece routines as human users who don't tweak the defaults. Aren't the motivational aspects as well as the match prep issue perhaps a bit more influential here than you seem to think?

I'm not sure. I'm doing a career game in Swedish lower leagues, am doing well but that could well be down to the quality of my team compared to the opposition. The game says I'm overachieving greatly but it's looking at reputation only when deciding that so it means very little.

I can't argue against the conversion ratios you're seeing, I'm just wondering as to why they're so high in the first place when the AI should be using the same set piece routines as human users who don't tweak the defaults. Aren't the motivational aspects as well as the match prep issue perhaps a bit more influential here than you seem to think?

I'm sure they are contributory, but they are secondary to the set piece issue. They may even contribute to the set piece issue (perhaps by decreasing the decision to challenge for the ball or mark a certain player?). However, we won't know until Paul looks into it.

Same question. Are you finding it too easy? If so, check your conversion ratio against all the other teams in the division.

If not and you do concede lots from corners, it might be that the same players who score goals also give a defensive advantage for set pieces as well, which would make a lot of sense.

I've started a new season so i don't have that data anymore, i'm not finding it too easy, i got promoted with a top half team from the French National but only managed promotion on the last day, slight overachievement but not anything like the people have been posting here.

I have corners and mixed and the only thing i tweak is the number of people that go back so i don't get caught in the counter.

Corners were the same on 11.3 though, and people find it harder than FM11?

And i hope that i don't sound too annoying with all these questions, thanks for all your time in trying to claryify this issue.

I've started a new season so i don't have that data anymore, i'm not finding it too easy, i got promoted with a top half team from the French National but only managed promotion on the last day, slight overachievement but not anything like the people have been posting here.

I have corners and mixed and the only thing i tweak is the number of people that go back so i don't get caught in the counter.

Corners were the same on 11.3 though, and people find it harder than FM11?

And i hope that i don't sound too annoying with all these questions, thanks for all your time in trying to claryify this issue.

It might be that even one change to the set piece default stops the overachievement. It might be that you don't have the right type of player in the right position to score loads from the routine. Remember, this is NOT affecting everyone.

Ultimately, these questions can only be answered after Paul looks into it in more detail.

They may even contribute to the set piece issue (perhaps by decreasing the decision to challenge for the ball or mark a certain player?).

That's exactly what I'm thinking. If the human user is scoring more proficiently from set pieces than the AI when both are using similar routines then something must be causing this. Corners being too easy to score from may be the main issue but morale and lack of match prep for the AI are very likely to be the reason why the conversion ratios are biased against the AI.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. If the human user is scoring more proficiently from set pieces than the AI when both are using similar routines then something must be causing this. Corners being too easy to score from may be the main issue but morale and lack of match prep for the AI are very likely to be the reason why the conversion ratios are biased against the AI.

They aren't the only reason. I think there is a fundamental issue with AI set pieces as well. However, they probably contribute.

I still don't think this is the problem. In my first season with Darmstadt I had 72 goals - 10 of those from Defenders (2 by a FB). Goals from corners was 13. Considering how little goals are scored from DFK and IDFK, I thing it is a good ratio of goals from open play and goals from set pieces. Mind you I am No. 6 by goals from Corners, obviously the AI teams score this way too. Goals scored to goals conceded from corner was 17-5. My overall GD was 72-34. The ratio is obviously a bit higher for corners, but this simply isn't the only factor in making the game too easy. It may be a contributing factor - just like the lack of match prep for Tcts 2 and 3, no doubt about that, but certainly it is not the sole issue. I still believe it is the AI "dumbness" in managing tactics, transfers and team morale (for some reason I have noticed most teams have a crappy morale before they play against me, whereas mine is always great), that makes the game far too easy.

Mind you I don't use the bug of crossing at far post, in this case the ratio would be far worse and my career even more pointless.

I still don't think this is the problem. In my first season with Darmstadt I had 72 goals - 10 of those from Defenders (2 by a FB). Goals from corners was 13. Considering how little goals are scored from DFK and IDFK, I thing it is a good ratio of goals from open play and goals from set pieces. Mind you I am No. 6 by goals from Corners, obviously the AI teams score this way too. Goals scored to goals conceded from corner was 17-5. My overall GD was 72-34. The ratio is obviously a bit higher for corners, but this simply isn't the only factor in making the game too easy. It may be a contributing factor - just like the lack of match prep for Tcts 2 and 3, no doubt about that, but certainly it is not the sole issue. I still believe it is the AI "dumbness" in managing tactics, transfers and team morale (for some reason I have noticed most teams have a crappy morale before they play against me, whereas mine is always great), that makes the game far too easy.

Mind you I don't use the bug of crossing at far post, in this case the ratio would be far worse and my career even more pointless.

Check the conversion ratios. Goals per shot (Go to Information / Stats). It is not the number of set piece goals, but the percentage of goals against overall goals scored. You might only score 17, but they will reduce the goals per shot by a significant margin across the team, meaning you can score while remaining defensively sound.

What I don't understand in this context is why user Teams have such a big advantage over AI when the main Bugs are in the Match Engine. Shouldn't the Match Engine Calculate the same bugs on both sides. As far as I thought, the match engine doesn't differ between a user coached Team und an AI Match.
If this is true, why is the AI not scoring as much goals on corners as the User Team does? Espacially when the user only uses the standart settings for set pieces. I agree that their are too many goals form corners. But my results are the same for me and the AI as far as I watched it.
But I am stronger in scoring normal goals. Maybe the AI reacts not right if they are behind?
Or the morals thing is calculated different for AI and humans.....that would mean, that the AI-Calculation doesn't work the same way as the one for human teams und this would be a reason for the easy going, but a real bad sign for the whole game.

In earlyer versions of the game, the game was to easy after a few years. This is the only time, that it is to easy right in the first season without using common tactics or secret players. So their has to be something that holds the AI down. Maybe a Bug, maybe purpose by SI, which is bad calculated. A hope further patches will help, because I really like the additions in the last two versions, which i'd not bought.

I hope this thread goes to show people how difficult it is finding some bugs in this game, its taken weeks, from various members and more than a few save games to get to the bottom of this, people need to give the testing team a break sometimes!!

Check the conversion ratios. Goals per shot (Go to Information / Stats). It is not the number of set piece goals, but the percentage of goals against overall goals scored. You might only score 17, but they will reduce the goals per shot by a significant margin across the team, meaning you can score while remaining defensively sound.

My conversion ratio is 0.14. The AI teams' varies between 0.11 and 0.14 - this can't be it (at least not in my save).

Actually there are some that go above 0.15 from the higher ranked ones a couple that go to 0.10 from the relegation battlers - that is normal, this is the variotion in the finishing skills of the players from better and crappy clubs.

topic has been diverted to the corner bug thingy. now back to how to make the game more difficult and AI match prep being low.

Its a cascade effect. All stemming from setpiece conversion ratios (problem #1). After that the AI adds to its own woes via poor MPs (problem #2). They're then likey to suffer a loss, or even big loss, that finally puts them into a downward spiral of poor long-lasting morale (problem #3), while your teams morale goes in the opposite direction, which loops back into your next game where you're likely to be on a high, benefit from more attacks, which means more attacking setpieces and the whole loop starts again - before you know it you're on one of them long winning runs, massively over-achieving with mediocre teams. I've probably over simplified it there like, but its not just 1 single problem with corners, thats just where it starts.

You can fix the AI MP with fmrte (a massive job if you do it for all AI teams in your save game), but the pay off won't be worth the man-hours you put into it. Only an SI patch is feasible imho.

Its a cascade effect. All stemming from setpiece conversion ratios (problem #1). After that the AI adds to its own woes via poor MPs (problem #2). They're then likey to suffer a loss, or even big loss, that finally puts them into a downward spiral of poor long-lasting morale (problem #3), while your teams morale goes in the opposite direction, which loops back into your next game where you're likely to be on a high, benefit from more attacks, which means more attacking setpieces and the whole loop starts again - before you know it you're on one of them long winning runs, massively over-achieving with mediocre teams. I've probably over simplified it there like, but its not just 1 single problem with corners, thats just where it starts.

You can fix the AI MP with fmrte (a massive job if you do it for all AI teams in your save game), but the pay off won't be worth the man-hours you put into it. Only an SI patch is feasible imho.

What would you suggest doing with the AI MP in fmrte? I'd only do it for teams in my league.

Took a nap, just woke up. Reading a few posts that are skeptical of wwfan's conclusion. It has been pointed out all along that not everyone is experiencing this problem. There was one key point in my analysis that is being overlooked by the skeptics, so can I ask you to check one simple thing: the player with the ridiculously high corner-scoring shots/goals ratio (a DC) has a very high Strength attribute. My other DC also had a ratio that was too high but not on the same scale, and he has less Strength. So, check the defender who has the highest shot/goal ratio - what is his STRENGTH (and Jumping and Heading)? If these attributes typically outweigh the opposition, wwfan has hot the nail on the head, whereas if you can show that the player in question's attributes are mediocre, other factors must play a bigger part.

My conversion ratio is 0.14. The AI teams' varies between 0.11 and 0.14 - this can't be it (at least not in my save).

Actually there are some that go above 0.15 from the higher ranked ones a couple that go to 0.10 from the relegation battlers - that is normal, this is the variotion in the finishing skills of the players from better and crappy clubs.

My conversion ratio is 0.14. The AI teams' varies between 0.11 and 0.14 - this can't be it (at least not in my save).

Actually there are some that go above 0.15 from the higher ranked ones a couple that go to 0.10 from the relegation battlers - that is normal, this is the variotion in the finishing skills of the players from better and crappy clubs.

No no, you're missing the point. It's not your team's stats that you need to examine; you need to look at the conversion rate for specific players. First look to see if you have any defenders (almost certainly DCs) who have scored more than a handful of games in a season - check the conversion rate for him/them. Then go to the league stats and find the table of conversion rates - in my case the chap in question was over 20 percentage points in front of the field.

What would you suggest doing with the AI MP in fmrte? I'd only do it for teams in my league.

You can improve all three AI tactics using FMRTE for all the teams in your league (see post #1043). Thats what I did for my test games against a team in my league. There did seem to be a very slight improvement in the challenge but it was such a short test I can't 100% be sure on that. I watched the games and did the managerial things I should do, i.e. switched tactics, used shouts, tried subs etc to grind out results, so that was a positive. However, you're only slightly "fixing" one problem. You would then need to do as wwfan recommends and nuke your own setpieces by keeping your tall threats away. The long lasting morale issue can be fixed with FMRTE too by using the morale-reset thingy I was experimenting on (many posts ago). So yes, its all doable but a bit of a mess on and can be risky to the integrity of your save if you over use FMRTE.

Yeah to be honest guys i would be a bit wary of massive edits to your game using FMRTE. I would be wary of any knock on effects that could come from changing too many things at once. FMRTE is great, but at the end its not SI supported and we dont really know what could be messed up with huge mass editing of the game using it. Hopefully now we seem to have gotten to the bottom of this a patch from SI will be forthcoming soon enough

What would you suggest doing with the AI MP in fmrte? I'd only do it for teams in my league.

This would lead to a curious knock-on effect in itself. Let's say that before every match you up the MP of your next opposition. Consider:

1. You max out MP for Team A. Play the game, more even contest.
2. You max out the MP for Team B, which you play after Team A. Play the game, even contest. And so on.

However, when you play Team B, Team A is going to play Team C; Team A has max MP; Team C doesn't. Therefore, all the AI v AI fixtures in your league (and cup games) are going to be imbalanced, although gradually this will reduce as you play more teams.

Therefore, it's not a real solution; only a thorough fix in a patch followed by starting a new savegame can really do it.

What I've seen so far in my save where I manage Real and Barca, there are far too many games where I end with 20+ shots on goal. The most I had was with Real where I had 40 shots and they had 3. I only won 2-0. With Barca I scored 6 goals from corners and free kicks, with Real I scored only 1 goal. Both in 5 competetive matches.

For me there are two big problems with teams that play against me. Both home and awey AI teams play very defensivly. The first problem is poor defending which ME related thing. My players come into position to shoot just too easily, it's not what you would expect against park the bus tatctics. There is no team defending, with 2 or 3 players closing down on attacker. It's just too easy to win when you have 20+ shots per game.

The second issue is that there are no real counter attack threats from AI teams. What's strange and it is related to the poor defensive mechanisms I mentioned, is that AI teams are far more capable of controlling posession than being dangerous from counter attacks. Witha Barca I play 433 and with Real 4231 so there are 3 and 4 players that don't come back to help in defense (another issue), and the AI seems uncapable of punishing that.

Imo these 2 things might well contribute to easy wins once you're being a favourite to win or playing with big clubs.

Took a team from mid table - their best DC is 4/10: STR 8, HEA 14, JMP 14.
Someone from another mid-tabled - best DC is 3/12: STR 12, HEA 14, JMP 16.

What I do see is that my DC's get quite a bit more ATTEMPTS despite me not even trying to go for the tactics at the back post - I think I had mixed crossing from both sides.

Otherwise, pretty much what I'd expect to see tbh. I still don't see it as THE problem in FM12...

I THINK that does support wwfan's conclusion. You players have average attributes. The conversion rate of your DC is high, but at less that 20% not ridiculous. My DC with outstanding attributes was getting 48%.

So, remind me (us) - is your experience that you are finding the game too easy, but are NOT scoring too many goals from set-pieces?

EDIT: just read post #1115. You're saying it is too easy and you speculate that other factors must be playing a bigger part. Fair point!

What I've seen so far in my save where I manage Real and Barca, there are far too many games where I end with 20+ shots on goal. The most I had was with Real where I had 40 shots and they had 3. I only won 2-0. With Barca I scored 6 goals from corners and free kicks, with Real I scored only 1 goal. Both in 5 competetive matches.

For me there are two big problems with teams that play against me. Both home and awey AI teams play very defensivly. The first problem is poor defending which ME related thing. My players come into position to shoot just too easily, it's not what you would expect against park the bus tatctics. There is no team defending, with 2 or 3 players closing down on attacker. It's just too easy to win when you have 20+ shots per game.

The second issue is that there are no real counter attack threats from AI teams. What's strange and it is related to the poor defensive mechanisms I mentioned, is that AI teams are far more capable of controlling posession than being dangerous from counter attacks. Witha Barca I play 433 and with Real 4231 so there are 3 and 4 players that don't come back to help in defense (another issue), and the AI seems uncapable of punishing that.

Imo these 2 things might well contribute to easy wins once you're being a favourite to win or playing with big clubs.

Well, if you play Barca/Real that is what you would expect - have you not been watching TV lately? They win 8-1 with 25 goal attempts. Pretty normal for these two clubs. The problem with FM is that same thing happens even with crappy teams.

I THINK that does support wwfan's conclusion. You players have average attributes. The conversion rate of your DC is high, but at less that 20% not ridiculous. My DC with outstanding attributes was getting 48%.

So, remind me (us) - is your experience that you are finding the game too easy, but are NOT scoring too many goals from set-pieces?

Exactly. Far too easy - I am playing with a team predicted to relegate - I win the league with GD of 72-34. I don't aim to exploit corners and therefore I don't get many corners goals (there are 5 teams with more goals from corners). Obviously I am scoring a lot from open play, which is where the problem lies for me. My strikers average is about 20% conversion, which is fairly typical. Still can't figure out where the problem lies, but it has something to do with the opponent's retardness in choosing tactics (I beat them without changing anything all season).

Exactly. Far too easy - I am playing with a team predicted to relegate - I win the league with GD of 72-34. I don't aim to exploit corners and therefore I don't get many corners goals (there are 5 teams with more goals from corners). Obviously I am scoring a lot from open play, which is where the problem lies for me. My strikers average is about 20% conversion, which is fairly typical. Still can't figure out where the problem lies, but it has something to do with the opponent's retardness in choosing tactics (I beat them without changing anything all season).

What formation are you using? Are you scoring a lot from indirect free kicks? One thing that is interesting is that your DC only got 5. Where did the other 12 corner goals come from?

I was just scrolling through my match stats - couldn't help but notice. In most games the long shots ratio is like 6-0 for the opposition as I tend not to shoot from distance as my players are ********. I can't remember seeing many goals scored against me with long shots, which leads me to think that the AI makes its players shoot from distance when they are incapable of doing so and in this way they just waste their chances and possension - can anyone else confirm such an observation?

There has always been too many corners in FM for me (attacker waiting for defender to bounce the ball off him to corner thing, very annoying). As I said with Barca I scored 6 goals from ifk and corners with Real only 1 (in 5 comp games). In game where I had 40 shots on goal I only had 1 corner. The main issue here is that players too easily run with ball through the middle and being able to shoot with just one player closing him down. In real life you could easily see 3, 4 or even 5 players which would close him down, as a unit.

What formation are you using? Are you scoring a lot from indirect free kicks? One thing that is interesting is that your DC only got 5. Where did the other 12 corner goals come from?

Not sure tbh, I guess other players score, too and I used 3 DCs - they have 10 goals total. I am using 4-4-2 (not standard but with not much adjustments). I am scoring a lot with placed shots (63) and headers (25). Assists-wise - Corners (17), Pass (33), Cross (37), Long Ball (2), Mistake (3).

Exactly. Far too easy - I am playing with a team predicted to relegate - I win the league with GD of 72-34. I don't aim to exploit corners and therefore I don't get many corners goals (there are 5 teams with more goals from corners). Obviously I am scoring a lot from open play, which is where the problem lies for me. My strikers average is about 20% conversion, which is fairly typical. Still can't figure out where the problem lies, but it has something to do with the opponent's retardness in choosing tactics (I beat them without changing anything all season).

Are you a favourite to win matches now? Does the AI play caoutiusly against you?

My experience is that scoring goals and coming into chances is too easy against park the bus tactics. It's boring to watch such games you attack and they pass to each other at the back and then to keeper and again like that. Once I score and AI opens they become more dangerous.

I was just scrolling through my match stats - couldn't help but notice. In most games the long shots ratio is like 6-0 for the opposition as I tend not to shoot from distance as my players are ********. I can't remember seeing many goals scored against me with long shots, which leads me to think that the AI makes its players shoot from distance when they are incapable of doing so and in this way they just waste their chances and possension - can anyone else confirm such an observation?

I would put that more down to your team not giving the opp much option but to shoot from long range, if your defence and defensive mids are playing well then the opposition will have no option but to shoot from distance.

I was just scrolling through my match stats - couldn't help but notice. In most games the long shots ratio is like 6-0 for the opposition as I tend not to shoot from distance as my players are ********. I can't remember seeing many goals scored against me with long shots, which leads me to think that the AI makes its players shoot from distance when they are incapable of doing so and in this way they just waste their chances and possension - can anyone else confirm such an observation?

Long shots are always wasted possession, it has nothing to do with player quality.

For me, a majority of shots against are long shots and they often number around ten or even more, roughly the same amount of shots I tend to have in a game. While the commentator feels that 15 shots vs 15 shots is a close game, the reality is in most cases that the AI was completely chanceless. A common occurence would be me 15 shots, 7 at goal 3 blocked 5 misses, 3 CCC, 0 long shots vs AI 15 shots 2 on target, 3 blocked, 10 misses, 0 CCC, 10 long shots. Ten -hopeless- long shots, from hopeless angles, hopeless range, under pressure and hopelessly wide.

This occurs most often when I am in the lead and they switch to a more attacking tactic which evidently involves ridiculously high attacking mentalities (aka panic attack!) and Often Long Shots. So they shoot whenever they approach my penalty box regardless of the existance or non-existance of better options. There are always better options, as shooting from distance is in a vast majority of cases the wrong decision to make. If I were the manager of a player who shot from distance when he shouldn't have (which is almost always) I would have given him the hairdryer treatment every time - even if he scored.

I would put that more down to your team not giving the opp much option but to shoot from long range, if your defence and defensive mids are playing well then the opposition will have no option but to shoot from distance.

Default tactics usually come with a lot of players having long shots enabled, i can only imagine that the AI doesn't change that unless it uses the shout for it.

I suppose most human managers reduce the long shots slider to rarely on almost every player.

I'd expect that with a defensive tactic but I am playing 4-4-2 with attacking mentality, with aggressive FB, no DM and not the best couple of DCs. I had a MC with BWM role but he is the worst defensive player imaginable. I seriously don't understand their long range shooting. If I was playing 4-2-3-1, stats that I see would be normal, but not my with tactics.

I think in my game specifically this was more a factor than corners tbh. Obviously, the AI not having back-up tactics from MP would help. I think a combo of that along with something coming from set pieces is what games my games too easy.

I will probably go and check my Napoli save now to check long shots there, but in lower division this should have more effect as players there are incapable of shooting from distance and when they do it causes my team no harm.

BiggusD - exactly what I mean!

Exactly the same thing with Napoli and Wolfsburg where I was masively overachieving, AI has something like 70% of Shots on goal from Long Range in most of the games I beat them to 0. I really hope, I am not the only one with such an issues, as this might be the core

Default tactics usually come with a lot of players having long shots enabled, i can only imagine that the AI doesn't change that unless it uses the shout for it.

I suppose most human managers reduce the long shots slider to rarely on almost every player.

I personally never change it unless i am really having a problem with a specific player, but i do use the "work ball into box" shout a lot when i notice my team is taking too many long shots and not creating enough good chances. I would still think that a defence playing very well, in confidence will result in more long shots from the AI, especially if they are chasing a game but not being able to create any CCC's.

There are a few relevant things discussed in the thread, but you guys have to remember that it is a number of things that have to work in conjunction with another to recreate the 'easy-bug'. Some people are under the impression that something is different in FM12 compared to FM11, I am not totally convinced. Last year we could create the scenario as long as you knew what you were doing. Some of these things were already discussed last year in this thread:

The set-piece/corner reality has always made the game easy as it was too easy to exploit. The only way I got around it was by simply putting a player in every area/category and set the kicker to 'mixed', that way I could ensure that my team was pretty much in the middle of the charts. If SI did leave everything like last season in regards to the ME, but did mess around a little with the set-piece/corner instructions it might explain the difference between FM12 and FM11. This part is a problem that will take an incredible ammount of time to fix.

In regards to the MP, this is what I think kind of had it's influence on the matter: the familiarity aspect. I personally think it should be removed as it basically contradicts the whole Strategy/Shouting aspect. The reason that Erimus couldn't locate anything in his short test is because you cannot see the changes that the AI makes during matches, it might be influenced by things like weather and for sure in regards to the scoreline. So, it doesn't matter if they are fully familiarised with the 1,2 & 3 tactics as the shouts/changes can simply fall out of any of these categories.

Another thing that simply has to be changed is the Counter-Attacking setting, this causes also a few issues. I would personally have it triggered when you take possession in your own half and maybe increase the settings by 5-10 notches during the phase. Maybe have it stop as soon as the opposition has enough players behind a certain area on the pitch, or something. I am not sure this is possible, but would be good to try to make it more realistic...

I personally never change it unless i am really having a problem with a specific player, but i do use the "work ball into box" shout a lot when i notice my team is taking too many long shots and not creating enough good chances. I would still think that a defence playing very well, in confidence will result in more long shots from the AI, especially if they are chasing a game but not being able to create any CCC's.

The only reason I decrease it on 7 or 8 of my players is that I know they wouldn't score even if I let them to. FM is just made that way - long range shots don't function properly. I only leave players with something like 15+ ability to shoot sometimes. The AI, I am certain, doesn't do that so this probably has a massive effect on my games - and from then on, on morale and MP when I take the lead for example. I might try a game where I just let the players shoot as on default just to make my game interesting even though I know will not score...lol I am dumbing myself on purpose!

Why on earth a player wouldn't shoot if he's allowed to? The real problem is in defensive ME mechanism which allows them to shoot from everywhere. I'm sure if that was sorted, we would witness far less unrealistic efforts...that's why people are reducing long shots.

The only reason I decrease it on 7 or 8 of my players is that I know they wouldn't score even if I let them to. FM is just made that way - long range shots don't function properly. I only leave players with something like 15+ ability to shoot sometimes. The AI, I am certain, doesn't do that so this probably has a massive effect on my games - and from then on, on morale and MP when I take the lead for example. I might try a game where I just let the players shoot as on default just to make my game interesting even though I know will not score...lol I am dumbing myself on purpose!

Would be nice to hear PaulC's opinion on the matter.

I dunno, like i say i never change it, i dont have an issue with long shots. My team doesnt take too many of them. There seems to be a common thought that by reducing long shots on your players you somehow totally negate the need for long shots which is a very bad way of tactics building. Long shots are as useful as any other kind of chance if you have the players and the right situation. I score a few good long range goals every season, not too many and when i see the AI taking lots of them its usually when my team is ontop and they are desperately trying to claw a goal back.

This is very useful feedback thanks wwfan et al. I will investigate what we can do to even up set pieces without unbalancing the ME. I expect the human default settings are better than the ones AI use if this is an issue. We may then need to reduce accuracy of delivery of course. I dont know if this explains every case but it will have a big influence on some people's games.

This is very useful feedback thanks wwfan et al. I will investigate what we can do to even up set pieces without unbalancing the ME. I expect the human default settings are better than the ones AI use if this is an issue. We may then need to reduce accuracy of delivery of course. I dont know if this explains every case but it will have a big influence on some people's games.

Can i ask why the AI wouldnt have the same default settings as we do when it comes to set pieces?

This is very useful feedback thanks wwfan et al. I will investigate what we can do to even up set pieces without unbalancing the ME. I expect the human default settings are better than the ones AI use if this is an issue. We may then need to reduce accuracy of delivery of course. I dont know if this explains every case but it will have a big influence on some people's games.

what about the Match Preparation issues, is it something that will be investigated or it doesn't have such a big effect on the game?

Can i ask why the AI wouldnt have the same default settings as we do when it comes to set pieces?

Sure. We'd always tried to give AI some variation and intelligence, but the code pre-dates tactics creator. I didnt feel that the defaults in TC were sufficient so I left it as is. I still intend to have AI set them up using abilities rather than positions, but clearly they need to be a little more willing to hit that big man at the far post

I dunno, like i say i never change it, i dont have an issue with long shots. My team doesnt take too many of them. There seems to be a common thought that by reducing long shots on your players you somehow totally negate the need for long shots which is a very bad way of tactics building. Long shots are as useful as any other kind of chance if you have the players and the right situation. I score a few good long range goals every season, not too many and when i see the AI taking lots of them its usually when my team is ontop and they are desperately trying to claw a goal back.

In Third German, the players are incapable of taking long shots. You get a far better Goals/Attack ratio if you cross or pass (direct or short) than if you use long shots. I can give you plenty of screens proving that. The problem is that AI doesn't recognise that and probably has FBs on Sometimes with ability 4-5.

I will start two seasons with the same team and use the same tactics in both teams but allow long shots in one, and not allow it in the other - I promise some interesting screens! My only worry is what type of club to choose as we are experiencing problems in both higher ranked clubs and lower ranked clubs...

Sure. We'd always tried to give AI some variation and intelligence, but the code pre-dates tactics creator. I didnt feel that the defaults in TC were sufficient so I left it as is. I still intend to have AI set them up using abilities rather than positions, but clearly they need to be a little more willing to hit that big man at the far post

hahaha cheers paul thanks for the reply!!
Im just waiting for the plethora of "OMG the AI score with every corner or IDFK" threads that will appear after your update lol

Sure. We'd always tried to give AI some variation and intelligence, but the code pre-dates tactics creator. I didnt feel that the defaults in TC were sufficient so I left it as is. I still intend to have AI set them up using abilities rather than positions, but clearly they need to be a little more willing to hit that big man at the far post

what about the Match Preparation issues, is it something that will be investigated or it doesn't have such a big effect on the game?

Some of the MP issues brought up earlier in the thread were already investigated and improved when we looked into some of the pkm's earlier. The knock-ons from AI teams not having full knowledge on all three different tactics are not too significant because the overall effect from MP is not major enough alone, like we already checked from the pkm's earlier. We have been doing further testing and tuning on the way AI sets up their match preparation training and the feedback from this thread has naturally been helpful in that.

The way MP levels work within a match is that the code can derive the actual levels to apply based on what the team has trained for, so even if they switch to a formation that they have not trained for at all, they can still use partial familiarity derived from the other formations they know via training. This same applies to human and AI teams so there are no differences there.

In Third German, the players are incapable of taking long shots. You get a far better Goals/Attack ratio if you cross or pass (direct or short) than if you use long shots. I can give you plenty of screens proving that. The problem is that AI doesn't recognise that and probably has FBs on Sometimes with ability 4-5.

I will start two seasons with the same team and use the same tactics in both teams but allow long shots in one, and not allow it in the other - I promise some interesting screens! My only worry is what type of club to choose as we are experiencing problems in both higher ranked clubs and lower ranked clubs...

No player is incapable of taking long shots, if you think that is what the attribute means your not really understanding the way it works. A low attribute means he is less likely to score from a long shot, but it does not rule it out altogether, also the level your playing in will make a difference. Your player may only have 5 for long shots, but when the keeper your coming up against has 9 for aerial ability the chance of him scoring become slightly higher. I would have any player further back on sometimes for long shots, the chances of them having a go, with a good tactic set up is very small, but you should NEVER rule out any method of scoring. You just have to make sure your team is making the best use of the ball when you have it, whether that means walking the ball into the net or blasting it there for 40 yards.

Some of the MP issues brought up earlier in the thread were already investigated and improved when we looked into some of the pkm's earlier. The knock-ons from AI teams not having full knowledge on all three different tactics are not too significant because the overall effect from MP is not major enough alone, like we already checked from the pkm's earlier. We have been doing further testing and tuning on the way AI sets up their match preparation training and the feedback from this thread has naturally been helpful in that.

The way MP levels work within a match is that the code can derive the actual levels to apply based on what the team has trained for, so even if they switch to a formation that they have not trained for at all, they can still use partial familiarity derived from the other formations they know via training. This same applies to human and AI teams so there are no differences there.

Thats interesting to know, and saves me a ton of time upgrading AI MPs on my save now (not that I was going to anyway )

No player is incapable of taking long shots, if you think that is what the attribute means your not really understanding the way it works. A low attribute means he is less likely to score from a long shot, but it does not rule it out altogether, also the level your playing in will make a difference. Your player may only have 5 for long shots, but when the keeper your coming up against has 9 for aerial ability the chance of him scoring become slightly higher. I would have any player further back on sometimes for long shots, the chances of them having a go, with a good tactic set up is very small, but you should NEVER rule out any method of scoring. You just have to make sure your team is making the best use of the ball when you have it, whether that means walking the ball into the net or blasting it there for 40 yards.

I will try to verify that. It makes sense in real life but judging by the ratio of long shots conceded/goals conceded of my teams - it doesn't work that way. Anyway I need a couple of days to verify my theory - we'll see what comes out.

Some of the MP issues brought up earlier in the thread were already investigated and improved when we looked into some of the pkm's earlier. The knock-ons from AI teams not having full knowledge on all three different tactics are not too significant because the overall effect from MP is not major enough alone, like we already checked from the pkm's earlier. We have been doing further testing and tuning on the way AI sets up their match preparation training and the feedback from this thread has naturally been helpful in that.

The way MP levels work within a match is that the code can derive the actual levels to apply based on what the team has trained for, so even if they switch to a formation that they have not trained for at all, they can still use partial familiarity derived from the other formations they know via training. This same applies to human and AI teams so there are no differences there.

But this part causes the human user to have the advantage if they don't change anything at all during the game, which contradicts the Shouting/Stategy changing aspect that has been implemented in the game for years. If you have 3 sets you can choose from then there is still a 'limitation' aspect, one which the AI is not always intelligent enough to deal with...

Can i ask why the AI wouldnt have the same default settings as we do when it comes to set pieces?

This! WHy AI is crippled in set pieces?

SO, summa summarum, after 12 pages, this things must be fixed(for now):

1. Corners , set pieces ratio
2. Moral bug
3. Match preparation AI bug ( please fix that, i think its bigger prob then we think. Not to mention its not realictic at all)
4. Too many long shoots from AI, many of them from very bad positions(tnx alexyfoot, BiggusD). AI wastes 2 many balls with no chance 2 score shoots.

The way MP levels work within a match is that the code can derive the actual levels to apply based on what the team has trained for, so even if they switch to a formation that they have not trained for at all, they can still use partial familiarity derived from the other formations they know via training. This same applies to human and AI teams so there are no differences there.

Sure, however having 3 tactics with different settings (ie: mentality, closing down...) and with MP sliders at full will make human teams much more efficient at handling shouts and new instructions as they will have a broader understanding of all the instructions pool used in FM than AI teams that can only get their familiarity from one tactic.

SO, summa summarum, after 12 pages, this things must be fixed(for now):

1. Corners , set pieces ratio
2. Moral bug
3. Match preparation AI bug ( please fix that, i think its bigger prob then we think. Not to mention its not realictic at all)
4. Too many long shoots from AI, many of them from very bad positions(tnx alexyfoot, BiggusD). AI wastes 2 many balls with no chance 2 score shoots.

That's about it. As long as SI are on the same page, they all seem like relatively quick and easy fixes... Now, I just need the proof of the last point with my test, I think 1 and 3 were already proven and are being addressed by SI. 2 might be just a consequence of all the others so probably needs more investigation.

SO, summa summarum, after 12 pages, this things must be fixed(for now):

1. Corners , set pieces ratio
2. Moral bug
3. Match preparation AI bug ( please fix that, i think its bigger prob then we think. Not to mention its not realictic at all)
4. Too many long shoots from AI, many of them from very bad positions(tnx alexyfoot, BiggusD). AI wastes 2 many balls with no chance 2 score shoots.

I dont think 3 or 4 are the issue here, Riz, who works with the MP code says its not a big issue because of the way it works, we should listen to him, we only speculate, he looks at what is actually going on underneath it all, if he says its not an issue we should listen to him. Im yet to be convinced long shots has anything to do with this situation really not directly anyway.

I dont think 3 or 4 are the issue here, Riz, who works with the MP code says its not a big issue because of the way it works, we should listen to him, we only speculate, he looks at what is actually going on underneath it all, if he says its not an issue we should listen to him. Im yet to be convinced long shots has anything to do with this situation really not directly anyway.

Have to agree with this. Riz not only works with MP, AFAIK he largely created it.

Regarding long shots, what do you think of these stats?:

Home team 1 Away team 0
Possession: Home 29% Away 71%
Goal attempts: Home 3 (2 on target) Away 21 (2 on target) [i.e. most of the rest long shots]?

Don't think I need to spell out which match on Saturday these are from; just saying they bear an uncanny resemblance to the match stats that people routinely trot out to rage about the useless ME!!

Oh, and Matej, one player on the winning side played (very well) in a completely unfamiliar role!

Sure, however having 3 tactics with different settings (ie: mentality, closing down...) and with MP sliders at full will make human teams much more efficient at handling shouts and new instructions as they will have a broader understanding of all the instructions pool used in FM than AI teams that can only get their familiarity from one tactic.

Yes, having three full familiarity tactics will give a slight edge here but considering the bigger picture, it does not appear to be a major factor to final results. However, like I already stated above we have looked into the AI handling of their match preparation training and we are continuing to balance things where needed.

While we are at this set piece thing, the AI also seems somewhat vulnerable to counters after an attacking throw-in, might be something worth looking at since they are probably commiting too many people forward.

Have to agree with this. Riz not only works with MP, AFAIK he largely created it.

Regarding long shots, what do you think of these stats?:

Home team 1 Away team 0
Possession: Home 29% Away 71%
Goal attempts: Home 3 (2 on target) Away 21 (2 on target) [i.e. most of the rest long shots]?

Don't think I need to spell out which match on Saturday these are from; just saying they bear an uncanny resemblance to the match stats that people routinely trot out to rage about the useless ME!!

Oh, and Matej, one player on the winning side played (very well) in a completely unfamiliar role!

This is one game. In FM it happens every game - it is one thing when it is an exception and a completely different thing when it is a tendency. Long Shots are useless in FM, most people have realized that and try to minimize them. The AI does not realize it and wastes a good proportion of its attacks on long shots. The solution is either to set the default tactics the AI uses to not have so much Long Shots allowance or to increase long shots success rates (right not they are useless unless you are playing with one of the top clubs and have decent players). I can't see how anyone can deny such an obvious thing - it has been with us for ages, but I never realized that it is what makes the game so easy for me

If 3. is not big issue, then they can just full 2. and 3rd formation to the maximum, so we dont have to worry about that. Am i right?

Btw, in real life if players never played in some formation, then its BIG issue in team results. We are talking about simulation of football here, right?

Well not exactly, this is my take on the AI's use of MP, if i am wrong hopefully Paul, Riz or the MP guru Loversleepr will tell me so, but i think it works like this:

The AI will most likely set up 1 main tactic, the managers preferred tactic. This will be the main tactic the AI uses for the majority of games, much like we do. I personally set up 3 tactics, but i only really use 1, in 6 season of FM12 i think i have changed 3/4 times. What i do is go with my standard tactic but with minor adjustments, perhaps playing 2 defensive central mids instead of one on support and one attack, or maybe change my full backs from attacking to standard, all depending on the opp and game. I dont change a great deal in the tactics menu, but i do make big use of touchline shouts, so if im playing bigger teams i might drop deeper, stand off, things like that. Now i think, and this is where i could be wrong, from looking at the MP levels of AI teams, the AI is a lot more dynamic with its tactical set up for any one game, it appears it will change tempo width ect on a game to game basis depending on all the factors available, this is why it looks like the AI is not really learning a tactic, it is constantly changing its main tactic to suit each game. The 2nd or 3rd tactics will only be there for extreme situations, much like they are for myself.

Also going back to an earlier discussion with Loversleeper i didnt reply to, the reason i dont think MP has a great say here is because Erimus was able to win games without changing anything, except using touchline shouts, now consider it takes my team until the 3rd/4th week of the season to become fully accustomed with my main formation, when set to high workload and team blend setting(the best for learning a new formation with a new team), so if you are not touching this and the default settings are no specific workload area and average setting, then it is going to take a lot longer to become familiar with the formation, which would mean come the start of a season the team Erimus was using would not be anywhere near fully familiar with the formation, far from it, and yet he was able to win games without a problem. So that instantly tells me the MP had little say in the outcome of his games.

This is one game. In FM it happens every game - it is one thing when it is an exception and a completely different thing when it is a tendency. Long Shots are useless in FM, most people have realized that and try to minimize them. The AI does not realize it and wastes a good proportion of its attacks on long shots. The solution is either to set the default tactics the AI uses to not have so much Long Shots allowance or to increase long shots success rates (right not they are useless unless you are playing with one of the top clubs and have decent players). I can't see how anyone can deny such an obvious thing - it has been with us for ages, but I never realized that it is what makes the game so easy for me

Your looking at it in the wrong way. Most long shots come because a player is out of options, others because they are confident they can score. Players do not just take pot shots all the time. Again ill say the reason teams may take a high number of long shots against you is because they have no other options available, that would tell me your teams defence is either doing their job very well (regardless of attributes) or the AI's team is not attacking well enough. The only people who really minimize long shots are those who cannot work around it tactically. Thats not ment as a dig just an observation on my part. Instead of looking at why your player is taking a long shot, people focus on the fact he is taking a long shot and try to stop him doing with, when infact adjusting how your team attacks will reduce the need for him to shoot from range. The more attacking options you have in the final third, the more chance there is of your player trying to find one of them rather than having a punt himself.

Saying that, the reasons behind the AI taking so many long shots could be linked to this problem. If we are scoring more than we should from set pieces then it begs to reason that the AI is having to attack more than it really should do to get a goal back, which in turn is leading the AI's attackers to take more risks and long shots in search of that goal, especially if they are behind and your team is on top. Again its a balancing case, you cant just make long shots more accurate or make sure the AI doesnt take them, you need to see why they are taking them, and what can be done to help the AI's players create better chances, but it seems more importantly if they sort out the set pieces a lot of these problems will be felt less, because there will be a more level playing field when it comes to scoring goals.

It would be really hard to convince me that too many corner goals scored by defenders is making this game as easy as some claim it to be. It is a problem, an annoying one but I don't buy it.

As much as I know, it was never hard to win a CL with lower division teams in 10 or 15 years. Or have any other kind of success. Fm was always easy for more experinced players. Why is this years fm easier than 11, I don't know. We know why long term games are easy. From my experience and the way I play the game, I would have a thought about AI tactical ability, tactical system in general and the ME which hugely favours attacking football.

Your looking at it in the wrong way. Most long shots come because a player is out of options, others because they are confident they can score. Players do not just take pot shots all the time. Again ill say the reason teams may take a high number of long shots against you is because they have no other options available, that would tell me your teams defence is either doing their job very well (regardless of attributes) or the AI's team is not attacking well enough. The only people who really minimize long shots are those who cannot work around it tactically. Thats not ment as a dig just an observation on my part. Instead of looking at why your player is taking a long shot, people focus on the fact he is taking a long shot and try to stop him doing with, when infact adjusting how your team attacks will reduce the need for him to shoot from range. The more attacking options you have in the final third, the more chance there is of your player trying to find one of them rather than having a punt himself.

Saying that, the reasons behind the AI taking so many long shots could be linked to this problem. If we are scoring more than we should from set pieces then it begs to reason that the AI is having to attack more than it really should do to get a goal back, which in turn is leading the AI's attackers to take more risks and long shots in search of that goal, especially if they are behind and your team is on top. Again its a balancing case, you cant just make long shots more accurate or make sure the AI doesnt take them, you need to see why they are taking them, and what can be done to help the AI's players create better chances, but it seems more importantly if they sort out the set pieces a lot of these problems will be felt less, because there will be a more level playing field when it comes to scoring goals.

I am playing half season with Espanyol with only LS difference between the two games. I will let you know, what comes out. I still don't think you can blame Set Pieces for everything.

It would be really hard to convince me that too many corner goals scored by defenders is making this game as easy as some claim it to be. It is a problem, an annoying one but I don't buy it.

As much as I know, it was never hard to win a CL with lower division teams in 10 or 15 years. Or have any other kind of success. Fm was always easy for more experinced players. Why is this years fm easier than 11, I don't know. We know why long term games are easy. From my experience and the way I play the game, I would have a thought about AI tactical ability, tactical system in general and the ME which hugely favours attacking football.

Its not about convincing me, you or any users of anything, its about us speculating and Paul or anyone else working with the code either backing these up or disproving them with ingame statistical facts. Its also not just corners, its all IDFK's or corners providing more goals than they normally would do, in certain situations. This years game isnt really any easier than any of the previous versions, what it appears is there is an ME problem which favours the human player and in turn makes the game seem easier.

I am playing half season with Espanyol with only LS difference between the two games. I will let you know, what comes out. I still don't think you can blame Set Pieces for everything.

I wouldnt waste your time to be honest, its not really going to tell us much, other than when set to a lower level long shots will happen less often, which we should already see in the game. You would need to analyse each long shot, and various other things to make it worth your while.

Of course it's not about convincing people. Maybe I should put it together differently, it would all be much easier if english was my first lenguage.

This defenders/tall players scoring too much is a problem of course. It might well contribute to overall feeling of game being easy. Just that I wouldn't expect game to be much harder after that is fixed.

There are many long term problems in ME. One of it is discussed right now, long shots. While human user can easily see that shooting from distance is not working and will find a way to work it out, AI won't.

I wouldnt waste your time to be honest, its not really going to tell us much, other than when set to a lower level long shots will happen less often, which we should already see in the game. You would need to analyse each long shot, and various other things to make it worth your while.

If it makes my own games more interesting, then it is worth the time. If it proves to me that my team performs worse when I let them shoot from distance, then to me it proves this is my main advantage against the AI. I don't need to convince the whole world.

edit...so not to spam, I don't want to argue. When I finish my experiment, I will share mu conclusions - I might be wrong but I might as well be be right to some extend.

You really need to look at WHY your team is taking a long shot rather than IF they are taking a long shot. But if your perception of what is happening makes you enjoy the game better then no one at all can argue with you

Of course it's not about convincing people. Maybe I should put it together differently, it would all be much easier if english was my first lenguage.

This defenders/tall players scoring too much is a problem of course. It might well contribute to overall feeling of game being easy. Just that I wouldn't expect game to be much harder after that is fixed.

There are many long term problems in ME. One of it is discussed right now, long shots. While human user can easily see that shooting from distance is not working and will find a way to work it out, AI won't.

Your English is a lot better than a lot of native English speakers!!
I also wouldnt expect a huge change after they release a patch, what you might notice is your not winning so many of those 1-0 games with a set piece goal, or the opp is not opening up as much against you because of said set piece goal, which in turn will make things a bit more challenging, but i wouldnt expect a game twice as hard as it is now.
There are definitely a lot of things that need worked on the in the long term, especially on the AI side of things, Paul and the other guys will keep working on them tho, rest assured the last thing they want are any more threads with this title!!

When we put all this problems aside, my worry is that FM AI dont impress me.

To be more more clear, this is how my saves look in last few years of FM. In first season just in few games i can feel power of AI teams. Maybe few games i lose 2 goals diffrence and i can feel that AI really punished me for my mistakes. More seasons i play, these games become easier and easier. I usually stop playin when i can see on my fixture list that im winning almost every game, and thats ussually in 3rd or 4th season. I play with Sheff. Wednesday or Everton.

I like games where AI is smart and where i really can say : wow, i must try harder. IN RPG games that happens a lot and thats why i like RPG.

In FM, i dont have feelin im playin against great AI managers, like A. Ferguson, A. Wenger, Ancelotti... They are in the game, but just their names, not their strength. I hope to see more strength of good managers in the future.

Yes, having three full familiarity tactics will give a slight edge here but considering the bigger picture, it does not appear to be a major factor to final results. However, like I already stated above we have looked into the AI handling of their match preparation training and we are continuing to balance things where needed.

Personally, I think MP has a interresting angle. But wouldn't it be more beneficial/realistic if you somehow linked it with the training regimes? Familiarity levels could be implemented so we can see visually if our training/MP has the desired effect. I just feel that it is counter-productive in it's current state and has too many limitations, the limitation aspect can be exploited and this is the reason I think that a Human User overachieves more easily if you stick to one tactic and not change anything.

@milner: Erimus's posts didn't prove that it isn't the case (as you suggested), if you don't know what you are looking for then you will miss the aspect. The reason Erimus's two tests couldn't possibly show anything as we have absolutely no idea what the AI is doing in terms of Strategies and Shouts in those games. One could assume that the AI could be using settings that they are unfamiliar with even if they have the 3 MP options at full. If I could see the matches that were played I could make an educated guess, though...

Personally, I think MP has a interresting angle. But wouldn't it be more beneficial/realistic if you somehow linked it with the training regimes? Familiarity levels could be implemented so we can see visually if our training/MP has the desired effect. I just feel that it is counter-productive in it's current state and has too many limitations, the limitation aspect can be exploited and this is the reason I think that a Human User overachieves more easily if you stick to one tactic and not change anything.

To me, MP is unrealistic at the moment. It focuses too much on the players positions and not enough on their roles.
As an example, I don't understand why moving my wide midfielder (playing as an attacking winger) to the 'winger' position (still playing as an attacking winger) wretches my MP. There should be (and maybe there's, but I don't feel the effects right now) a blending between player position, player role, and so on to determine whether your team masters your tactics.

To me, MP is unrealistic at the moment. It focuses too much on the players positions and not enough on their roles.
As an example, I don't understand why moving my wide midfielder (playing as an attacking winger) to the 'winger' position (still playing as an attacking winger) wretches my MP. There should be (and maybe there's, but I don't feel the effects right now) a blending between player position, player role, and so on to determine whether your team masters your tactics.

Completely agree with this - to go from bright green to bright red by shifting a few metres is just silly

I have played Fm for 4 years now and always play as my favourite team Hereford United. This version seems easier I have just got 2 unheard offs in on free transfers and a young centre back from Torquay recommended by my assistant manager. I went ten matches unbeaten, currently second in the league and 3rd round of the cup beckons. Also in JP southern semi final.
On paper a poor side, on grass a poor side, on my laptop world beaters.